To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

INTERIM STUDY REPORT
Rules Committee
Rep. Gary Banz, Chairman
Oklahoma House of Representatives
Interim Study 11-057, Speaker Kris Steele et al.
September 20, 2011
Oklahoma ethics laws in response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Devan Pederson, Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Devan.Pederson@oag.ok.gov
o The Citizens United case challenged a part of the McCain-Feingold Act which
prohibits corporations and labor unions from using general funds for broadcast
advertisements naming specific candidates for federal office within a certain number
of days prior to an election. Such ads were termed “Electioneering Communications”
and could only be paid for with money from Political Action Committees (PACs) that
are subject to contribution limits and the disclosure of individual donor names.
o Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, made a documentary film called “Hillary”
which was an unflattering portrayal of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and
wanted to broadcast it within 30 days of the 2008 presidential primary. McCain-
Feingold prohibited such broadcast so Citizens United sued the Federal Election
Commission for an injunction claiming the Act violated the group’s free speech rights
under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
o The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which held, in a 5-4 decision, that
the government cannot suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s
corporate identity or bar independent corporate expenditures for electioneering
communication, both of which violate the corporation’s freedom of speech under the
U.S. Constitution.
o Contributions made by individuals, groups, or corporations to individual candidates,
PACs, or political parties may still be limited in dollar amount; however, independent
expenditures, including “Electioneering Communications” by individuals, groups or
corporations may not be limited as long as they are not coordinated with a candidate.
See presentation a
Rebecca Adams, General Counsel
Rebecca.Adams@ethics.ok.gov
Marilyn Hughes, Executive Director
Marilyn.Hughes@ethics.ok.gov
Oklahoma Ethics Commission
o Reviewed the background of the Citizens United case and a United States Court of
Appeals DC Circuit case, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission.
o The Commission has been working to conform the agency’s administrative rules to the
court ruling, and has studied what it will take to conform the statutory provisions.
o With respect to Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes:
 Conform definitions the court holdings;
 Create an exception to contribution and source limit for “SuperPACs” (as a result
of the Speechnow.org case); and

INTERIM STUDY REPORT
Rules Committee
Rep. Gary Banz, Chairman
Oklahoma House of Representatives
Interim Study 11-057, Speaker Kris Steele et al.
September 20, 2011
Oklahoma ethics laws in response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Devan Pederson, Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Devan.Pederson@oag.ok.gov
o The Citizens United case challenged a part of the McCain-Feingold Act which
prohibits corporations and labor unions from using general funds for broadcast
advertisements naming specific candidates for federal office within a certain number
of days prior to an election. Such ads were termed “Electioneering Communications”
and could only be paid for with money from Political Action Committees (PACs) that
are subject to contribution limits and the disclosure of individual donor names.
o Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, made a documentary film called “Hillary”
which was an unflattering portrayal of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and
wanted to broadcast it within 30 days of the 2008 presidential primary. McCain-
Feingold prohibited such broadcast so Citizens United sued the Federal Election
Commission for an injunction claiming the Act violated the group’s free speech rights
under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
o The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which held, in a 5-4 decision, that
the government cannot suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s
corporate identity or bar independent corporate expenditures for electioneering
communication, both of which violate the corporation’s freedom of speech under the
U.S. Constitution.
o Contributions made by individuals, groups, or corporations to individual candidates,
PACs, or political parties may still be limited in dollar amount; however, independent
expenditures, including “Electioneering Communications” by individuals, groups or
corporations may not be limited as long as they are not coordinated with a candidate.
See presentation a
Rebecca Adams, General Counsel
Rebecca.Adams@ethics.ok.gov
Marilyn Hughes, Executive Director
Marilyn.Hughes@ethics.ok.gov
Oklahoma Ethics Commission
o Reviewed the background of the Citizens United case and a United States Court of
Appeals DC Circuit case, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission.
o The Commission has been working to conform the agency’s administrative rules to the
court ruling, and has studied what it will take to conform the statutory provisions.
o With respect to Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes:
 Conform definitions the court holdings;
 Create an exception to contribution and source limit for “SuperPACs” (as a result
of the Speechnow.org case); and